Drug WarRant

I’d heard it was coming, but that doesn’t make it any better. President Obama officially announced his intent to nominate Michele M. Leonhart, Administrator of Drug Enforcement, Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.

We had talked about how maybe, just maybe, the DEA might change a little bit after they got the hold-outs from the last administration out of there. Now he’s making her permanent. To recap, here’s the story I wrote about her years ago. The only silver lining is that the rank and file DEA agents can’t stand her.

Fascinating article by Bruce Mirken at Alternet on the potentials and the need for human research regarding cannabis and curing cancer. Ignore the misleading title of the article.

I’d like to see some proof of these stats…

He also said the percentage of marijuana-related domestic violence and property crimes in Clark County are higher than those that were alcohol related.

Schwartz said, “Gammick feels that marijuana users are less responsible than alcohol users.”

Remember Change.org? They’ve got another voting thing for putting legalizing marijuana into the top categories.

A very interesting read by Gene Weingarten in the Washington Post: On the jury, Gene Weingarten didn’t believe the D.C. police’s eyes

Weingarten tells of being an alternate on a jury for a small-time drug case. He was convinced the suspect was guilty. So was the other alternate. So, apparently, were most if not all the regular jurors.

And yet, 10 of the 12 regular jurors voted to acquit and both alternates would have done the same. Clearly this was a form of jury nullification. Did they vote to acquit this scumbag drug dealer because they opposed the drug war? No.

It was the lyin’ eyes.

You see, in the drug war, the police often feel that they’re at a disadvantage — after all, nobody reports consensual crimes, so the police have to be the aggrieved party, the witness, the investigator and arrestor. This leads to the temptation to “firm up” their case, particularly in those rare cases when a defendant chooses to go for a jury trial.

In this case, the “eyes” (policeman who witnesses the transaction) gave a nice detailed description of the suspect: “black male, black jacket, royal blue baseball hat, v-necked white t-shirt, sneakers, key on a chain around his neck, carrying a bottle of ginger ale.” Two other police officers agreed that they had heard this exact description over the radio, and then they moved in and arrested the suspect, who matched the description in every particular.

Turns out, the “eyes” was 172 feet away from the transaction.

The jury members were sure the defendant was guilty, but they didn’t like being lied to by the police.

Says Gene:

I believe they knew they had the right guy and were willing to cheat a little to assure a conviction.

I believe they had the right guy, too. But the willingness to cheat, I think, is a poisonous corruption of a system designed to protect the innocent at the risk of occasionally letting the guilty walk free. It’s a good system, fundamental to freedom. I think a police officer willing to cheat is more dangerous than a two-bit drug peddler.

Bingo.

And that’s another reason to get rid of this corrupting drug war.

Via The Agitator…

In the New York Post: Two Bronx men free after ‘drugs’ turn out to be candy

Two Bronx men were locked up and left to rot in a filthy jail cell for nearly a week after a pair of cops mistook their candy for a bag of crack.

The “drugs” were finally tested five days later and determined to be popular Coco (coconut) Candy. The charges were dropped.

The trouble began the night of Jan. 15, as José Pena, a 48-year-old plumber, and his longtime pal and colleague Cesar Rodriguez, 33, were headed to a party, and decided to stop at a bodega on 181st Street and the Grand Concourse.

When they came out, cops were waiting and asked to search their Ford minivan. “I said ‘Go search.’ I even opened the door,” Rodriguez told The Post.

Lesson #1: Never, ever, ever, ever, agree to a search. If you’re guilty, you’re helping them catch you. If you’re innocent, you’re wasting your time, you’re taking a chance since they aren’t required to fix anything they break, you’re leaving yourself open for being charged for something you didn’t know about that fell out of a friend’s pocket, and you’ve got the possibility that a couple of morons will think your coconut candy is crack and throw you in jail for a week.

An officer rummaged around, came out holding a “Hello Kitty” sandwich bag, and shouted “Bingo!” the men said.

“It’s only candy!” Rodriguez said, as the cops handcuffed him and Pena, and several other police cars rushed to the scene. […]

“Can you test it? Can you taste it?” Rodriguez asked the cops. “Shut up!” they replied.

“I didn’t know having candy was a crime,” he said. […]

The Bronx District Attorney’s office confirmed that the case was dropped after authorities realized there were no drugs. The NYPD had no comment.

Today’s drug war. Guilty until proven innocent.

Check out some of the comments…

why should the cops be suspended???? if it looks like crack and is in a plastic bag they should be arrested regardless, if they didnt arrest them and it was crack and they sold it to one of your kids you liberals would be going nuts on the cops, and as for tasting it?? wtf if some1 asked me to taste crack and risk my life with all the chemicals its cut down with i’d tell them to screw themselves its my life or thiers, this is a no brainer, both men arrested and have the alleged drugs sent to the lab for testing

Lock em” up anyhows……

Just because they didn’t find drugs on these two this time doesn’t mean that they’re not guilty…

Lesson #2: There are a few real knuckledraggers who read the NY Post.

Why there isn’t a shield law everywhere that prevents prosecuting anyone who calls 911 to report an overdose… well, it’s beyond me. The fact that activists have to work hard to even get such a bill considered is ridiculous.

That means that a majority of politicians are essentially saying: “No, I’d prefer that they die.”

Kathleen Kane-Willis has been doing a great job trying to get this kind of legislation passed in Illinois (often referred to as Good Samaritan laws), and now the New York Times has an article about her efforts.

State Representative Constance A. Howard, Democrat of Chicago, sponsored a bill in 2008 modeled after a New Mexico law that gave limited immunity to overdose victims and witnesses. The bill stalled in the House Rules Committee over concerns that it would conflict with the state’s prosecution of cases involving drug-induced homicide.

That’s right. They want you to be afraid to call for help so you hesitate, and then they hope that when you finally do call it’s too late so your overdosing friend dies, and then they can charge you for murder for being involved in obtaining the drug.

Sado-moralists, all.

They say that karma is a bitch. I hope so.

Barnidge: If government doesn’t control marijuana, criminals will

This is an outstanding column by Tom Barnidge that will be running in a number of California papers tomorrow. It features a number of LEAP members, and details a host of reasons why marijuana should be legal, along with bringing up parallels to the other prohibition. He even mentions hemp, and the deglamorization effect. He also dismisses law enforcement opposition to being part of the “internal wiring of police agencies.”

Let’s hope it gets a lot of play.

Marijuana in the classroom? Sometimes it’s legal — Interesting article at Christian Science Monitor is surprisingly well-balanced, even noting that this is nothing new — kids have been doing worse drugs (Ritalin) at school.

Marijuana and the Massachusetts Senate Race

By now, you’ve probably heard something about the campaign finance decision by the Supreme Court. Before you come to conclusions about how it affects us, or whether it was a bad decision, I suggest you read these two excellent posts by Glenn Greenwald:

• What the Supreme Court Got Right
• Follow-up on the Citizens United Case

DrugSense Weekly – a weekly review of the most interesting or relevant articles in the press and on the web related to drug policy reform.

Drug War Chronicle – weekly update of drug war news and analysis from Stop the Drug War.org.

SaferChoice (“Marijuana is safer than alcohol, it’s time we treat it that way”) is upset about the companies who are sponsoring the drug war enforcement organizations in Colorado who have been actively lobbying against marijuana law reform, and so Safer is calling for a boycott of Starbucks Coffee (among others).

I’ve never been a big fan of boycotts (I don’t think they’re usually all that effective — the biggest value comes from the publicity of announcing it), but feel free to join in if you wish. It might be better to find a way to educate these businesses as to why supporting drug task forces isn’t being a good corporate citizen (they may not know).

I can’t boycott Starbucks anyway, because I’m a hard core addict. If I can’t get my fix of that sweet burnt Italian Roast, I just can’t function. And to stop? Talk about withdrawal… nothing easy like quitting pot.

Update: Via Seattle Post-Intelligencer

Starbucks says the effort is misguided. The company does not provide financial support to the Colorado law enforcement group, Starbucks said in a statement.

“This organization is apparently targeting us because a local law enforcement organization in Colorado posted our logo on their website. Starbucks has not taken a position on their issue,” the statement said. “We have a tremendous amount of respect for the men and women of local law enforcement. However, we have not sponsored this particular organization through our foundation. It is up to the discretion of our local teams to support those groups that are relevant in their neighborhoods. Our stores often support organizations in their community by donating coffee for their events.”

The Colorado Drug Investigators Association Web site, which apparently listed other national and Colorado companies besides Starbucks as backers, is no longer working.

This is pretty wild. Check out the video over at Raw Story: Gretchen Carlson defends Republicans’ right to smoke pot

Clearly the comedy duo are on a publicity tour for their new comedy show and they’re doing every TV show they can get, but you can tell that they’re just having fun with the fact that Fox invited them.

Chong told Carlson that he wants to see marijuana legalized — but not for Republicans. “We want to legalize pot for everyone that wants to smoke it. You know, we don’t want to legalize it for Republicans.”

Carlson quickly came to the defense of stoners in the GOP. “That wouldn’t be fair. Would it?” asked Carlson. “I mean being fair and balanced, if you want to legalize it shouldn’t you want to legalize it for everyone?”

“I want to legalize it for everyone,” answered Cheech Marin.

Daniel Rubin: It was no joke at security gate

22-year-old Rebecca Solomon, a University of Michigan student, was going through security at Philadelphia International Airport when she was confronted:

A TSA worker was staring at her. He motioned her toward him.

Then he pulled a small, clear plastic bag from her carry-on – the sort of baggie that a pair of earrings might come in. Inside the bag was fine, white powder.

She remembers his words: “Where did you get it?”

This is a nightmare scenario — particularly given today’s drug laws and the severity of sentences (not to mention being at an airport).

Until finally…

Just kidding, he said. He waved the baggie. It was his.

And so she collected her things, stunned, and the tears began to fall.

Another passenger, a woman traveling to Colorado, consoled her as others who had witnessed the confrontation went about their business. Solomon and the woman walked to their gates, where each called for security and reported what had happened. […]

When she complained to airport security, Solomon said, she was told the TSA worker had been training the staff to detect contraband.

Now that this story hit the paper, the TSA worker is no longer employed.

Good.

I understand that the TSA needs to conduct training exercises, but there are proper ways to do that, and sneaking contraband into innocent people’s bags is not one of them.

I remember a story a couple years ago about the equivalent of the TSA in another country conducting training exercises. They snuck some drugs into suitcases and lost track of the suitcases. Oops. Hope none of those innocent travelers was going to a country where they execute people for smuggling drugs…

The Senate Judiciary Committee today passed S. 714, National Criminal Justice Commission Act of 2009. This was Senator Jim Webb’s bill, and it could be extremely important. It still needs to pass the full Senate and the House, etc., but this is a critical step. It’s got strong bi-partisan support in the committee.

More on this at the NORML blog and ACLU blog.

Of course, getting the commission is only part of the battle. We need to get some good people on it, make them do their job, and then actually get someone to pay attention to the report when it comes out.

We have quite a history of not paying attention to Commissions when they deliver information that the government doesn’t want to hear.

…

And we’re not the only ones…

Take a look at Transform’s epic battle to get the Home Office to even release a 2007 report on the cost-effectiveness of drug enforcement efforts. In this updated post today, they really rip into the Home Office:

They had 6 years to address these obvious failings (in data collection and evaluation – let alone outcomes) and utterly failed. There can be no excuses.

The report also demonstrates that the various justifications (see below) given for its suppression during the strategy consultation, and for the following 2 years, were entirely spurious. The Home Office have behaved pathetically, like children in a playground with a secret, and treated the public with contempt in the process. They still are; note the ridiculous redaction of ‘SOCA’ throughout, except in a footnote referring to one of the redactions (they can’t even do censorship properly).

This saga was an attempt to conceal a piece of research that showed the policy in an unflattering light, and its censorship was purely political; a disgrace for the Government and particularly for the Home Office and ministers directly involved.

We will provide a more detailed analysis later, but worthy of note is the item in table 3 on page showing expenditure by police in 05/06 – £2 billion out of £3 billion total expenditure, £1.7 billion of which is ‘indirect costs of dealing with drug-related crime’. It looks suspiciously as if it fits with Transform’s analysis that enforcement creates the very costs that prohibition is supposed to reduce.

Danny Kushlick said:

“The withholding of this report demonstrates yet again how the Government is committed to the rhetoric and fantasy of success of the current strategy, whilst doing its damnedest to keep the truth out of sight of the public. The edifice of prohibition comes crashing down as soon as evidence is pitched up against it. Ultimately we are being duped into supporting a policy that is demonstrably failing to deliver anything even approximating to value for money”

Ouch.